[OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] V2 Fix libpam's chmod

[Koen Kooi]

Op 2 mrt. 2012, om 14:39 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:

> On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 14:31 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 2 mrt. 2012, om 14:26 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 18:34 +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
>>>> The libpam's has an error when generating the rootfs:
>>>> 
>>>> chmod: cannot access `/usr/sbin/unix_chkpwd': No such file or directory
>>>> 
>>>> This is because the following code in libpam_1.1.5.bb:
>>>> 
>>>> pkg_postinst_pam-plugin-unix () {
>>>>   # below is necessary to allow unix_chkpwd get user info from shadow file
>>>>   # on lsb images
>>>>   chmod 4755 ${sbindir}/unix_chkpwd
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> This is to set the setuid permission for unix_chkpwd (the lsb test
>>>> requires this), but it lacks a "${D}", and we can do this in the install
>>>> stage.
>>>> 
>>>> [YOCTO #2049]
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Robert Yang <liezhi.yang at windriver.com>
>>> 
>>> Robert, in future patches could you use a subject line like:
>>> 
>>> [PATCH 1/1 v2] Fix libpam's chmod
>>> 
>>> instead of:
>>> 
>>> [PATCH 1/1] V2 Fix libpam's chmod
>>> 
>>> so that when the patches get applied, the V2 is stripped off?
>>> 
>>> The reason is that the value isn't particularly within the repository
>>> once merged and doesn't look good when looking through commit history.
>> 
>> Actually both versions above are wrong, the right version would be similar to:
>> 
>> libpam 1.1.5: fix chmod in postinst
>> 
>> We can debate the usefulness of the version specifier, but we do need to follow the commit guide for the rest.
> 
> Good point, I was just commenting that the patch version specifier
> didn't look good. As you say, the package name should be first too, as
> per http://wiki.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines
> under Common Errors in Patch and Commit Messages: '- Short log does not
> start with the file or component being modified. Such as "foo: Update to
> new upstream version 5.8.9"'.
> 
> If I was going to be picky, I'd suggest capitalisation of "fix" in your
> version ;-)

I'm a bit conflicted on that one. If I'm going to treat it as a sentence by using caps, I'd also like to use proper punctuation, which the guidelines don't allow. And that's why I said 'similar' :)

regards,

Koen